9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 229 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Revision order u/s 263 - Order issued manually which does not bear the signature of the authority passing the order - no Document Identification Number (DIN) has been mentioned in the body of the impugned order which was in violation of Circular No.19 of 2019 of CBDT - HELD THAT - A perusal of the copy of show-cause notice reveals that it does not bear DIN. Similarly the impugned order does not bear DIN. Therefore, in view of two decisions TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST 2022 (7) TMI 1334 - ITAT KOLKATA AND SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL 2022 (11) TMI 1348 - ITAT KOLKATA the impugned order is not sustainable and it is quashed. As an undisputed fact that the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act has been issued manually which does not bear the signature of the authority passing the order. From the perusal of the entire order, in its body, there is no reference to the fact of this order issued manually without a DIN for which the written approval of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax was required to be obtained in the prescribed format in terms of the CBDT circular. We also note that in terms of para 4 of the CBDT circular, such a lapse renders this impugned order as invalid and deemed to have never been issued. It is also important to note about the binding nature of CBDT circular on the Income-tax Authorities for which gainful guidance is taken from the decision in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles 1997 (8) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. Commissioner did not generate DIN either in the notice or in the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act without Document Identification Number (DIN). Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Order Passed under Section 263 without DIN The assessee appealed against the order dated 18.02.2020 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary ground of appeal was that the CIT erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and setting aside the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's counsel argued that, as per Circular No. 19 of 2019 issued by the CBDT, every correspondence or show-cause notice must mention a Document Identification Number (DIN). If no DIN is generated, such a notice is deemed void ab initio. The counsel cited the Tribunal's decision in the case of Tata Medical Centre Trust vs. CIT, where it was held that notices or orders without DIN are not sustainable. This precedent was also followed in the case of Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO. The assessee's counsel pointed out that both the show-cause notice and the impugned order did not bear DIN, thus rendering the order invalid. The CIT(DR) could not refute this factual submission. Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that neither the show-cause notice dated 03.01.2020 nor the impugned order bore DIN. Consequently, based on the decisions in the cases of Tata Medical Centre Trust and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order for lack of DIN. The Tribunal emphasized the binding nature of CBDT circulars on the Income-tax Authorities, referencing several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Hero Cycles and UCO Bank, and the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Nayana P. Dedhia. These decisions underscore that circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the tax authorities and must be adhered to, failing which the communications are deemed invalid. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the impugned order for not adhering to the mandatory requirement of quoting DIN, as stipulated by the CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to adjudicate on the merits of the case, given the legal issue's resolution in favor of the assessee. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th March, 2023.
|
